From the comments:
The key phrase of the Second Amendment is found in the preamble, but not the militia part. The key phrase is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Why the adjective? The flip answer is that a state that bans the possession and use of arms by the “people” is not as free as one that does not. But there is a more mechanical aspect that supports a right to self defense.

A free state implies necessary restraints on the armed agencies of government that are vested with the authority to use force. This lessens the risk that such entities will become agents of tyranny, but also impedes their ability to defend the life and safety of individual citizens. Unless the people are willing to accommodate an oppressive police presence in the interest of public safety (airline security lines notwithstanding) the citizen of a free state (i.e. one in which government force is restrained in the interest of individual liberties) must be allowed the right and means to provide their own defense.

As an aside, I think that probing whether English common law protects a right of self defense is largely unhelpful. It is my understanding (quite possibly wrong, but…) that people living in England were subjects, and that the King owned some sort of interest in his subjects’ lives beyond humanitarian or humanistic ones. Killing one of the King’s subjects was almost as bad as killing one of the King’s cows. People living under the U.S. Constitution however are not subjects in that sense, and are not afflicted by the disabilities imposed by monarchical abstractions.

To sum up: “Free” implies limitations on the state’s ability to provide an arbitrary level of security, this necessarily implies a degree of self reliance on the part of the free citizen to protect his life in the setting of such limitations. If the Constitution prevents the policeman from looking in the trunk of the speeding hit man’s car when he is on the way to kill you, the Constitution impliedly allows you to rectify that by dispatching the miscreant when the choice comes down to you or him.

Posted by nurseinbox under schoolComments Off on NEA: Let’s celebrate communism!

Read the rest. Here’s a piece:
“They’re at work, and their friends are at work, to try to show that social justice, or communism, or progressive ideology is good. The antithesis, Christianity, is evil,” Howse stated.

“Bill Ayers (the former Weather Underground member), you would think is so radical that he would be rejected. Instead he’s been elected as vice president of a leading organization that writes curriculum. So Bill Ayers is writing social-justice curriculum for America’sschools,” Howse continued.

“So this is how the National Education Association and people like Bill Ayers will work to praise the Soviet Union, to praise China,” Howse added. “Their job has been to rewrite history to make America look bad and communism look good.”

Application noted from the I-phone
Capitalism will force Jobs and his colleagues to sort the matter out, in weeks, if not months, since otherwise the product and brand will be damaged with heavy losses.From here.
This is possible if the information is disseminated. That was the purpose of the first amendment. If the people get the correct information, they make decent decisions. Our present set doesn’t provide what the founders envisioned.

spouseinbox and I met a a restaurant late this evening to partake of their wares and refuel before I had to return to do a medical procedure. The dinner was enjoyable – pancakes with strawberries and whipcream, sausage, bacon and scrambled eggs. I enjoyed the entire set. The check came and I decided to take care of business while spouseinbox finished a similar delight. The waiter rang up the items and then gave a 10% discount.
Cool.
I never minded a discount, and then glanced at the slip.
I now get to frame my first senior discount.
I have a few decades under my belt, but hey, thought they were hidden well. Maybe not as well as I had hoped.